Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 12747 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 21 

U.S.C. 451–472, 601–695; 7 CFR 1.3, 2.7. 

■ 2. Add § 390.11 to read as follows: 

§ 390.11 FSIS systems of records exempt 

from the Privacy Act. 

(a) USDA/FSIS–0005, AssuranceNet 

system of records, is exempt from 

subsections (c)(3), (d)(1)–(4), (e)(1), 

(e)(4)(G)–(I), and (f) of the Privacy Act, 

5 U.S.C. 552a, to the extent it contains 

investigatory material compiled for law 

enforcement purposes in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Exemptions 

from the particular subsections are 

justified for the following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3) because the 

release of the disclosure accounting 

would permit the subject of an 

investigation to obtain valuable 

information concerning the nature of 

that investigation. This would permit 

record subjects to impede the 

investigation, e.g., destroy evidence, 

intimidate potential witnesses, or flee 

the area to avoid inquiries or 

apprehension by law enforcement 

personnel. 

(2) From subsection (d)(1) because the 

records contained in this system relate 

to official Federal investigations and 

matters of law enforcement. Individual 

access to these records might 

compromise ongoing or impending 

investigations, reveal confidential 

informants, or constitute unwarranted 

invasions of the personal privacy of 

third parties who are involved in a 

certain investigation. 

(3) From section (d)(2) because 

amendment of the records would 

interfere with ongoing law enforcement 

proceedings and impose an impossible 

administrative burden by requiring 

investigations to be continuously 

reinvestigated. 

(4) From subsections (d)(3) and (4) 

because these subsections are 

inapplicable to the extent exemption is 

claimed from subsections (d)(1) and (2). 

(5) From subsection (e)(1) because it 

is often impossible to determine in 

advance if investigatory information 

contained in this system is accurate, 

relevant, timely and complete, but, in 

the interests of effective law 

enforcement, it is necessary to retain 

this information to aid in establishing 

patterns of activity and provide 

investigative leads. Moreover, it would 

impede the specific investigative 

process if it were necessary to assure the 

relevance, accuracy, timeliness, and 

completeness of all information 

obtained. 

(6) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) 

since an exemption being claimed for 

subsection (d) makes these subsections 

inapplicable. 

(7) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because 

the categories of sources of the records 

in this system have been published in 

the Federal Register in broad generic 

terms in the belief that this is all that 

subsection (e)(4)(I) requires. In the 

event, however, that subsection (e)(4)(I) 

should be interpreted to require more 

detail as to the identity of sources of the 

records in the system, exemption from 

this provision is necessary in order to 

protect the confidentiality of the sources 

of enforcement information and of 

witnesses and informants. 

(8) From subsection (f) to the extent 

that the system is exempt from other 

specific subsections of the Privacy Act. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Done in Washington, DC. 

Theresa Nintemann, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03343 Filed 2–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2024–0145] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Laguna Madre, South 

Padre Island, TX 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

certain navigable waters in the Laguna 

Madre. The safety zone is needed to 

protect personnel, vessels, and the 

marine environment from potential 

hazards created by a firework display 

launched from a stationary barge in the 

Laguna Madre, South Padre Island, 

Texas. Entry of vessels or persons into 

this zone or remaining in the zone when 

it is in effect is prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by the Captain of 

the Port, Sector Corpus Christi or a 

designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 p.m. 

on February 14, 2024 through 1 a.m. on 

February 15, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2024– 

0145 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this rule, call 

or email Lieutenant Commander 

Anthony Garofalo, Sector Corpus Christi 

Waterways Management Division, U.S. 

Coast Guard; telephone 361–939–5130, 

email CCWaterways@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

COTP Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus 

Christi 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because it is 

impracticable. We must establish this 

safety zone to protect personnel, vessels, 

and the marine environment from 

potential hazards created by the 

fireworks display, and we lack sufficient 

time to provide a reasonable comment 

period and consider any comments 

submitted before issuing the rule. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the 

same reason provided above, the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause also exists 

for making this rule effective less than 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The 

Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus 

Christi (COTP) has determined that 

potential hazards associated with the 

fireworks displays occurring from 6 

p.m. on February 14, 2024 through 1 

a.m. on February 15, 2024 will be a 

safety concern for anyone in the waters 

of the Laguna Madre area within a 700 

yard radius of the following point; 

26°6′5.05′′ N, 97°10′12.46′′ W. The 

purpose of this rule is to ensure safety 

of vessels and persons on these 

navigable waters in the safety zone 

while the display of the fireworks takes 

place in the Laguna Madre. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
12748 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

This rule establishes a temporary 

safety zone beginning on the night of 

February 14, 2024, and continuing into 

the early morning of February 15, 2024. 

The safety zone will encompass certain 

navigable waters of the Laguna Madre, 

and is defined by a 700 yard radius 

around the launching platform, which 

will be located at the following point: 

26°6′5.05′′ N, 97°10′12.46′′ W. No vessel 

or person is permitted to enter the 

temporary safety zone during the period 

when it is in effect without obtaining 

permission from the COTP or a 

designated representative, who may be 

contacted on Channel 16 VHF–FM 

(156.8 MHz), or by telephone at 361– 

939–0450. The Coast Guard will issue 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local 

Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety 

Marine Information Broadcasts, as 

appropriate. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This rule has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing 

Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this 

rule has not been reviewed by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, location, and 

duration of the safety zone. The 

temporary safety zone will be in effect 

for the short period of 7 hours, 

beginning the night of February 14, 

2024, into the early morning of February 

15, 2024. The zone is limited to the area 

with a 700 yard radius of the launching 

position in the navigable waters of the 

Laguna Madre. Prohibiting vessel traffic 

within that zone does not completely 

restrict the traffic within the waterway, 

and the rule allows mariners to request 

permission to enter the zone. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the 

temporary safety zone may be small 

entities, for the reasons stated in section 

V.A, above, this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. If you 

believe this rule has implications for 

federalism or Indian tribes, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, and Environmental 

Planning, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f) and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 

1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Rev. 1. A Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 12749 

1 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq. 

2 49 CFR 1.95. 

3 49 U.S.C. 32902(a). 

4 49 U.S.C. 32902(f). 

5 49 U.S.C. 32902(d). NHTSA notes that there is 

no statutory provision allowing exemptions from 

the light truck standards established in 49 CFR part 

533. 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0145 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0145 Safety Zone; Laguna 

Madre, South Padre Island, TX. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: all navigable waters of the 

Laguna Madre encompassed by a 700- 

yard radius from the following point; 

26°6′5.05′′ N, 97°10′12.46′′ W. 

(b) Enforcement period. This section 

is in effect, and subject to enforcement, 

from 6 p.m. on February 14, 2024 

through 1 a.m. on February 15, 2024. 

(c) Regulations. (1) According to the 

general regulations in § 165.23 of this 

part, remaining in, or entry into this 

temporary safety zone are prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a 

designated representative. They may be 

contacted on Channel 16 VHF–FM 

(156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 361– 

939–0450. 

(2) If permission is granted, all 

persons and vessels shall comply with 

the instructions of the COTP or 

designated representative. 

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP 

or a designated representative will 

inform the public of the enforcement 

times and date for this safety zone 

through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, 

Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety 

Marine Information Broadcasts as 

appropriate. 

Dated: February 12, 2024. 

Jason Gunning, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Sector Corpus Christi. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03406 Filed 2–14–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 531 

[NHTSA–2022–0048] 

RIN 2127–AM29 

Exemptions From Average Fuel 

Economy Standards; Passenger 

Automobile Average Fuel Economy 

Standards 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; final decision to 

grant exemption. 

SUMMARY: This final decision responds 

to petitions filed by several low volume 

manufacturers requesting exemption 

from the generally applicable corporate 

average fuel economy (CAFE) standards 

for several model years (MYs). The low 

volume manufacturers and MYs are as 

follows: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited 

for MYs 2008–2023, Ferrari N.V. for 

MYs 2016–2018 and 2020, Koenigsegg 

Automotive AB for MYs 2015 and 2018– 

2023, McLaren Automotive for MYs 

2012–2023, Mobility Ventures LLC for 

MYs 2014–2016, Pagani Automobili 

S.p.A for MYs 2014 and 2016–2023, and 

Spyker Automobielen B.V. for MYs 

2008–2010. NHTSA is exempting these 

manufacturers from the generally 

applicable CAFE standards for the 

model years listed and establishing 

alternative standards for each 

manufacturer at the levels stated below, 

which the agency has determined to be 

maximum feasible for each of those 

manufacturers for the model years in 

question. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 21, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the dockets to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, and/or: Docket 

Management Facility, M–30, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Management Facility is open between 9 

a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except on Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Bayer, Chief of Fuel Economy 

Division, Office of Rulemaking, by 

phone at (202) 366–9540 or by fax at 

(202) 493–2290 or Hannah Fish, 

Attorney Advisor, Vehicle Standards 

and Harmonization, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, by phone at (202) 366–2992 or 

by fax at (202) 366–3820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction 

2. Summary of Proposed Rule 

3. Summary and Response to Comments 

Received on the Proposal 

4. Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy 

for Exempted Manufacturers 

5. Regulatory Impact Analyses 

a. Regulatory Evaluation 

b. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

c. National Environmental Policy Act 

Regulatory Text 

1. Introduction 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

(EISA) of 2007,1 directs the Secretary of 

Transportation, and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) by delegation,2 to prescribe 

corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 

standards for automobiles manufactured 

in each model year (MY). EPCA/EISA 

requires NHTSA to establish CAFE 

standards for passenger cars and light 

trucks at the ‘‘maximum feasible average 

fuel economy level’’ that it decides 

manufacturers can achieve in a MY,3

based on the agency’s consideration of 

four factors: technological feasibility, 

economic practicability, the effect of 

other standards of the Government on 

fuel economy, and the need of the 

United States to conserve energy.4

Congress provided in EPCA/EISA 

statutory authority for NHTSA to 

exempt a low volume manufacturer of 

passenger automobiles from the 

industry-wide passenger car standard if 

NHTSA concludes that the industrywide passenger car standard is more 

stringent than the maximum feasible 

average fuel economy level that the 

manufacturer can achieve, and NHTSA 

establishes an alternative standard for 

that manufacturer’s fleet of passenger 

cars at the maximum feasible average 

fuel economy level that the 

manufacturer can achieve.5 Under 

EPCA/EISA, a low volume manufacturer 

is one that manufactured (whether in 

the United States or not) fewer than 

10,000 passenger automobiles in the MY 

two years before the MY for which the 

exemption is sought, and that will 

manufacture fewer than 10,000 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1